Motion to Compel – Page 86 – Electronic Discovery Law

Feig v. The Apple Org.., 2009 WL 1515506 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant alleged that identifying responsive employee emails was too burdensome in light of inability to search emails electronically, court found defendant had not satisfactorily established inability to search and ordered production of requested emails; court acknowledged that if defendant established the inability to search electronically, identifying requested emails would be overly burdensome and, in the event searching was truly impossible, ordered defendants to move for a protective order supported by an affidavit of a forensic expert providing an explanation

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Earp v. Peters, 2009 WL 1444707 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel copy of copyrighted software used by defendant?s expert to create an illustrative animated exhibit where defendants produced all underlying data and a copy of the final exhibit to plaintiff and provided their experts for multiple depositions and where defendants argued they could not be compelled to produce a copyrighted software ?simply to spare Plaintiff the expense of acquiring the software or the services of an animator?

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Copyrighted software used to create illustrative animation

Gracebrothers, Ltd. v. Siena Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 1547821 (Del. Ch. June 2, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, in response to a request for its board of directors? emails, defendants did not ask directors to search their emails but rather determined through a series of questions that no unique emails existed and argued that the emails were already produced when they produced the ?sender-side versions,? court found that the added production would not be overly burdensome or expensive and ordered the production of any emails reasonably related to the relevant request

Nature of Case: Complaint challenging a reverse stock split in violation of Deleware law

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Omnicare, Inc. v. Mariner Health Mgmt. Co., 2009 WL 1515609 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought to compel defendants to restore backup tapes containing emails that were automatically deleted but where defendants objected to restoration and production due to cost, court denied plaintiff?s motion and ordered defendants to produce relevant data from their ?active stores? first in order to assess the likelihood of finding relevant, discoverable data on the backup tapes; if active stores showed a likelihood of recovery of discoverable data on the backup tapes, court stated that processing at defendants? expense would be appropriate

Nature of Case: Dispute arising between pharamaceutcal suppliers and nursing home operator related to contractual obligations and billing

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat?l Fisheries Serv., 2009 WL 1287919 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Adopting the majority rule requiring the disclosure of ?all things communicated to [a testifying expert] and considered by the expert in forming his opinion? even if otherwise protected as work product, court established that the test for discoverability was ?whether the documents reviewed or generated by the expert could reasonably be viewed as germane to the subject matter on which the expert has offered an opinion? and ordered production of emails between counsel and testifying expert discussing the declaration or its content and also ordered the production of all previous drafts of expert?s declaration

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Endangered Species Act

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of testifying expert’s declarations and emails regarding same between expert and counsel

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenebaum, , 2009 WL 1651338 (D.R.I. June 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs? motion to compel compliance with third party subpoena to allow access to the hard drive of the parents of defendant accused of copyright infringement in a music downloading case where parents were not parties to the action and where the computer was purchased after defendant moved out and thus plaintiffs failed to establish likelihood of the discovery of relevant information sufficient to warrant intrusion into parents? privacy

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive belonging to third party

Averett v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 2009 WL 799638 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the burden of searching all possible locations for a mention of plaintiff was overly burdensome in light of plaintiff?s 17 year history with the company and the unlikely possibility that additional relevant information would be discovered and where plaintiff failed to identify with particularity any documents she believed to exist or category of information likely to contain relevant information, among other things, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Zurn Plex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 2009 WL 1606653 (D. Minn. June 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants objected to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arguing the requested search of emails and various computer drives would be unduly burdensome, court dismissed attorney?s affidavit in support of such objections as ?not compelling evidence? where attorney was not ?an expert on document search and retrieval? but, ?in an effort to control costs,? limited defendants? search to particular locations and ordered the use of 14 terms as supplied by the court or agreed upon by the parties; court invited defendants to renew their objections if the search nonetheless proved overly burdensome by submitting evidence, including evidence from ?computer experts,? in support of those objections

Nature of Case: Claims that defendants’ choice of plumbing fittings caused damage to plaintiffs’ property

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Kravetz v. Paul Rever Life Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1639736 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2009) (Not for Publication)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: For purposes of determining the number of hours worked by plaintiff following his injury, court granted motion to compel the production of several hard drives and storage devices used by plaintiff to conduct business but limited the inspection to relevant metadata and forbade inspection of the substance of any documents

Nature of Case: Disability claim

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata on hard drives

Ashman v. Solectron Corp, 2009 WL 1684725 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where court ordered plaintiff to return documents retained improperly following termination of his employment but allowed him to utilize any such documents produced by defendant in the ?normal course of discovery? and where defendant argued that it need not produce the documents returned by plaintiff if it could not find the documents in its own system as such documents were outside the scope of ?normal? discovery, court ordered defendant to produce the non-privileged and relevant documents because they were within defendant?s ?legal possession, custody and control? and thus subject to disclosure

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Motion to Compel